Furcal
by scottyboy10 on Nov 29, 2008 11:45 PM EST
23 comments
Would it not be smart to sign Furcal and then explore trading KJ? I think we could get at least decent value for KJ, and I wouldn't want to trade Escobar. Plus, having two shortstops up the middle woudn't be a very bad deal, either. Worst case, we could get one or two decent prospects for KJ. More likely, we could get a decent major league outfielder for him. Someone who might not be exactly what we are looking for, but a good filler for Cody Johnson/Heyward/Gorkys Hernandez. What do you guys think?
0 recs |
23 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I dont think Furcal would take too kindly to moving to second
by SayHeyWerd on Nov 30, 2008 12:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
No, a thousand times no..
Why is everyone so eager to trade KJ?
by RainDelay on Nov 30, 2008 1:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Probably because he does nothing flashy
No big HR, RBI, or SB totals. No freakishly athletic defensive plays. Apparently, he’s not nearly “gritty” enough to get intangible-love that so many guys who are far worse players than he get.
It’s unfortunate, because he does hit a lot of doubles, show a solid approach at the plate, and play average defense at second base. And he’s still pretty damn cheap. His career line is a very good .273/.356/.440, good for a .280 EqA. In the last two years, he’s been almost 8 runs better than a replacement level second baseman each year. That may well overrate him slightly, but even if he’s worth a little more than 5 wins per season, there’s no excuse for all of these “trade KJ” threads. He’s young, cheap, plays average defense, and boasts plate discipline and plus gap power.
And some of you want to trade him for some corner outfielder? Really?
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 30, 2008 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
When you have so many obvious holes, the rotation and left field, and to a lesser extent center field, why would you go out and spend money on an area where you actually have some depth? The Braves have Kelly Johnson and Yunel Escobar entrenched at the big leagues with Martin Prado and Brent Lillibridge right behind them (regardless of how you feel about their potential) and Diory Hernandez right behind those two. Why sign a middle infielder and not put your funds toward the areas of need? It makes no sense.
by cbwilk on Nov 30, 2008 1:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I have to disagree with Bowman that the Braves are in no position to sign Furcal right now. Signing him now would create a massive bidding war for Kelly Johnson or Yunel Escobar. Both would be expendable. Biggest package for either player wins. If we trade Johnson, we can move Escobar to second – not ideal but it works. Since Johnson and Escobar are both relatively cheap, most teams would want to get in on the trading. Plus, it might scare teams that we’ve been negotiating with into accepting our package.
by beeniez on Nov 30, 2008 1:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's smart there...
move your best infield defender to second and replace him with a guy on the wrong side of thirty who may well have lost a step. Oh, and he’s far more expensive. Yeah, I’m all for that.
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 30, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know it’s not the ideal situation. I still think Furcal can be productive, albeit not completely injury free. He’s going to want to play shortstop, so who would you rather have at second Kelly Johnson or Escobar? It’s obviously debatable, so the idea of moving Escobar to second gives us more leverage in trade talks. We could give up either – whoever offers the biggest package. And I would assume that since most teams could afford either financially, Escobar’s ability to play second, short, and third, and Johnson’s patient, power stroke at a premium position, we could get a very large package for either.
So yes, pessimistically you’d be signing a 31-year old shortstop who in some opinions is declining while moving your best infielder to a less important position. But optimistically, you’d be signing what could be a productive lead off hitter that’s a fan favorite (to some apparently) while getting a large package in prospects and keeping Escobar.
by beeniez on Nov 30, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This all sounds fine in theory, but it ignores the fact that Escobar spent a large part of 2005 in AA having a hissy fit over playing second base. He didn’t want to play there and didn’t like playing there. I doubt that after a couple of years of playing in the majors he’s going to be more receptive to a move to second.
by cbwilk on Nov 30, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Escobar is already under team control, when he reaches free agency he can decide where he wants to play like Furcal. But right now, he can be blacklisted for not playing. He apparently whines a lot, so that’s probably nothing new to them. Think Alfonso Soriano not wanting to play left field for the Nationals. Escobar can whine all he want, he’s not in a position to do anything about it right now.
by beeniez on Nov 30, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, that’s great in theory, but it’s not exactly a great stance if you want to get a productive season out of a young player. You’re right, Escobar has proven himself to be a tempermental player and I don’t really think that taking a ‘this is how it is, deal with it’ approach is the best method with him. You mention Soriano and sure, he played great for the Nats, but he left the second he had a chance and the team got nothing out of it. Soriano is also much more mature and understood that only he would suffer from not playing, I don’t think Escobar has that much awareness. The Braves would suffer from your approach more than anyone.
by cbwilk on Nov 30, 2008 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point!
Great point, I was against it in the beginning but it makes a lot sense. Sign Furcal, move Escobar to 2B and trade KJ or trade Escobar for Peavy
by AlRoBraves95 on Nov 30, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope.
Signing Furcal would eliminate some of our leverage because teams would know that we have to trade one of our young middle infielders. I believe Rafael has stated that he has no interest in playing 2B. We can’t afford him unless we’re 100% sure that we could fill one of our more pressing needs (two frontline starters and a powerhitting outfielder) with an equally cheap option.
Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/
by ejruiz on Nov 30, 2008 2:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
Ask the Padres what it’s like to trade a guy everyone knows is leaving some way or another.
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 30, 2008 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s an entirely different situation. They have to trade Peavy to only a limited amount of teams. If it were any team, they’d have a large line of teams and probably would have gotten their package they were looking for. The market for Peavy is small, the market for Escobar or Johnson would be much bigger. Five teams compared to 30. The Padres aren’t getting their package because realistically only one team can afford him (the Braves) that is in the market for him. If you expand that market to all 30 teams, the Braves would have to give up more and meet the demands of Towers to get the package that he wants.
If we signed Furcal, it would eliminate our leverage that we would have to move one middle infielder, yes, but the leverage that so many teams would be bidding for them would increase the package back to normal if not higher. All 30 teams can afford either player, so the demand would be high. Plus, all the Braves would have to do is leak a story saying they’re willing to experiment with Johnson or Escobar in left field – even with obvious intentions and no desire to do so other teams might not be able to afford the risk that they might. How many teams have a hole or want to upgrade at second, shortstop, and third?
by beeniez on Nov 30, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s still too risky. You could still wind up not getting the offer you want, and getting stuck with Furcal, Escobar and Johnson. Then you’re screwed. If they are truly going to trade KJ or Escobar, they should go ahead and do it, then they can sign Furcal to their hearts’ content.
I still say Furcal makes little to no sense for a team that has other holes that need filling. He’s a speed player with back issues on the wrong side of 30. Committing $13 million a year when you only have one proven starting pitcher right now seems like putting the cart before the horse indeed.
by tgthree on Nov 30, 2008 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I want Maggs and Burnett. Would love Fookie at 2B, but it doesn’t seem plausible.
by TradeAndruw on Nov 30, 2008 6:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What's with everyone's obsession with Furcal?
At this point in their careers, both Escobar and Kelly Johnson are better hitters than Furcal. Furcal is a .770 to .800 OPS bat with a career .352 OBP. Kelly Johson is a .800 to .850 OPS bat with a .356 OBP. Escobar is a .770 OPS hitter when playing injured and is likely capable of .800 OPS without an inflated BABIP. Escobar has a .373 career OBP. Both Escobar and Johnson have similar or better OPS than Furcal with better OBP. They are better hitters and better leadoff hitters as a result.
And, no, the stolen bases do not make up for it. Furcal steals at a 75% clip. Stealing at a 75% clip is the break even point for effective base stealing because getting caught stealing hurts a lot more than getting the extra base. In higher leverage situations his speed is more useful, and may produce a fraction of a win because of that, but he gives it up because of his inferior bat. Stolen bases and sacrifice bunts are probably the most overrated thing in baseball, but steals can become useful in certain high leverage situations. However, a superior hitter is better than an inferior hitter who has stolen bases and sac hit skills. This is why speedsters like Pierre and Bourn suck, since they have no other real skills (other that good to okay defense). People should stop obsessing over having speed at the top of the lineup and worry more about having things that don’t end in outs at the time of the lineup.
Escobar is an elite defensive SS entering his athletic prime while Furcal is a solid to good defensive SS declining. Obviously Escobar would be better than Kelly at 2B, but I doubt it makes up for the plays Furcals loses at SS since more plays are made there than 2B. I’d say defensively this is a wash.
Signing Furcal costs the Braves more money to get worse. Yes, you can spin off Escobar or Johnson for something, but the team can only improve if you get the perfect trade out of it (Peavy is not the perfect trade) or otherwise you break even or lose. And that’s assuming Furcal doesn’t get injured and Escobar or Johnson don’t get better.
by VictorW on Dec 1, 2008 12:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
“Signing Furcal costs the Braves more money to get worse.”
Doesn’t matter to me if the production is worse, even or slight improvement. The only way I look at Furcal, and his price tag, is if there is a gaping hole at my SS position.
by scstrato on Dec 1, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is another one...
Frank should stay away from.
by BBFAN46 on Dec 2, 2008 7:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
